War in Georgia

A place to relocate messages and threads that should be deleted.
Robert Rojas
Supporter
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Eugene - Oregon - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: The Guns Of August Revisited.

Post by Robert Rojas »

Greetings to both citizen Andy Hill and the community as a whole. Howdy Andy! Well sir, in reference to your installment of Wednesday - August 27, 2008 - 12:03pm, old Uncle Bob is curious why you have conspicuously omitted that collective transnational body known as the EUROPEAN UNION from your specific response to citizen Yuri. Given that the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are constituent members of this transnational political body, one would naturally assume that the mavens in Strasbourg would have a thing or two to say about such weighty matters as peace and war IF the heirs of the Golden Horde should take it upon themselves to reincorporate the Baltic States into a latter day version of the Imperial Russian Empire. Have I misconstrued or taken something out of its proper context? Finally, old yours truly would rather imagine that the United States of America would act in concert with its fellow members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization IF the European Union so requested a military response against the interests of the Russian Federation. As far as I am personally concerned, the European Union can defend itself against any encroachment from the Russian Federation. The European Union would not need the intervention from such outworlders as the United States of America and the Canadian Confederation. As the principal nuclear armed states of the European Union, both the United Kingdom and the Republic of France retain more than enough weapons of mass destruction to get the job done in a satisfactory manner. So, what say you? Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on what is an essentially a Eurocentric problem - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in merry old England. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN - not to mention everybody else.
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee
User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Andy H »

The defence arm of the EU is off little real consequence and as such any meaningful military action could only be undertaken by NATO. Obviously individual states can act on a political/economic level, as can the EU, which is where its combined strength really lays.

Regards
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die
Annelie
Patron
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:07 am
Location: North America

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Annelie »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 87,00.html
'Russia Made a Tactical Error'
Russia hoped the Shanghai Cooperation Organization would prove more pliable. But the six-member group refused to back the Kremlin's latest moves in Georgia -- leaving Russia high and dry on the world stage.


REUTERS
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (left) meets his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao before a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
On Thursday, Russia hit its first real speed bump since its invasion of Georgia in early August. At a six-nation summit in Tajikistan, Russia's neighbors refused to support its recognition of the breakaway Georgian republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Founded in 2004, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization counts Russia, China, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan as members. The Kremlin hoped the group's support would lend legitimacy to its actions in the Caucasus and its diplomatic recognition of two Georgian provinces.

But China resisted Russia's move, stressing the importance of territorial integrity. Though the group gave its blessing to "the active role of Russia in assisting peace and security in the region," it took a much dimmer view of granting statehood to two tiny separatist republics.

"The SCO states express grave concern in connection with the recent tensions around the South Ossetia issue and urge the sides to solve existing problems peacefully, through dialogue, and to make efforts facilitating reconciliation and talks,” reads the summit’s final declaration.

German papers see the statement as a defeat for Russia -- and a sign of China's growing strength.

The left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung argues:

"Russia's burning bridges all over the place these days. One can't disrespect one's friends any more openly than this. Recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia puts Russian President Medvedev at odds with the principles of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional security group made up of China, Russia and four Central Asian nations. In 2004, the SCO declared terrorism and separatism to be threats on the same level, and promised to fight against both. China, most of all, was worried about claims by Taiwan, Tibet and the Uighurs in its western provinces."

"Without consulting its partners in the SCO, Russia violated these principles -- and presented its despotic partners in the organization with a fait accompli. At the summit in Tajikistan on Thursday, Russia expected its regional allies to officially recognize the independence of the Georgian provinces."

"But as recently as the SCO summit in 2007, Putin said that the time for unilateral action was over -- words which he apparently meant only for the US."

"Putin and Medvedev need to reckon with a resurgent China in Central Asia, one which has already broken Russia's pipeline monopoly. And unlike the EU, China has economic and political weight -- something the Kremlin apparently hasn't given much thought to until now."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"From the Russian leadership's point of view, the last two weeks have been a string of successes. They easily won a popular war against their hated neighbor Georgia. The EU and the USA have scattered like a bunch of scared chickens, and the Kremlin could enjoy its new power."

"But now it looks like Russia made a tactical error by recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which brings China and Russia together, refused to give Russia its blessing. China instead voiced 'grave concern in connection with the recent tensions around the South Ossetia issue' -- an icy rejection of Russia's move."

"The war itself found little resistance outside the EU and the US. But officially recognizing separatists is like spitting in the soup of governments all over the world. Lots of countries contain minorities who dream of independence. Encouraging them with unilateral diplomatic action isn't a good way to make friends."

"Nyet to violence in Georgia, no to the violation of another country's territorial integrity: the presidents of China and four other Central Asian nations couldn't have been more clear. For Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin it was a decisive political defeat. Moscow hoped for support and solidarity from the SCO. Instead it got a slap in the face."

"And Medvedev and Putin should get ready for more headaches. Russia's been trying to build up the SCO as a counterweight to NATO for years, hoping to combat the influence of the US and NATO in Central Asia. Russia had assumed it would take a leading role in the organization. The SCO was going to be the foundation for a wider geopolitical power play on Moscow's part. But after the chilly renunciation it got in Tajikistan, it might as well give up both of those goals. …"

"The fear of Russia's new expansionism isn't just bringing Europe together. It could push Moscow's one-time allies away as well. China in particular has very different goals for the SCO than Russia: Beijing sees it more as a way to guarantee access to raw materials than as a bulwark against the West. A new military alliance in Central Asia may stay just a Russian dream for now."

-- Andrew Curry, 12:30 pm CET




Annelie
________________________
Annelie
Patron
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:07 am
Location: North America

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Annelie »

ARE MOLDOVA AND UKRAINE AT RISK?
Ex-Soviet States Fear Russian Aggression
By Otto Luchterhandt

Moscow's recent offensive in the Caucasus region has former Soviet republics worried. They see it as a return to old imperialist policies and fear they could be the next victims of Russian aggression. How much at risk are Ukraine and Moldova?

Russia's invasion of Georgia shocked its neighbors, so much so that many people in the Baltic republics and in Poland are worried that they could be next. As Russia flexes its imperialist muscles, there are growing fears that former Soviet republics could face threats to their very existence.


AFP
Pro-Russian supporters welcome a Russian missile cruiser Moskva to Sevastopol.
Ironically, these countries are not just members of the European Union, but are also protected under NATO's mutual defense guarantee. Hence, it comes as no surprise that citizens of Moldova and Ukraine, members of neither the EU nor NATO, see the situation as even more troubling.

During a meeting in the Black Sea port of Sochi on Aug. 26, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin against forcefully attempting to regain control over Transnistria, a region that seceded from Moldova in 1992. After the meeting, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner emphatically warned Russia against intervening in Moldova and Ukraine. But how serious, in fact, is the risk?


fears of open conflict with Ukraine especially over the Crimea and the Russian naval bases Russia maintains for its Black Sea fleet in Sevastapol should be taken very seriously. At first glance this concern is surprising. Crimea, which has been part of Ukraine since 1954, is populated mainly by Russians and Crimean Tatars, who make up more than 10 percent of the population. However, efforts in the early 1990s to incorporate the Crimea into Russia remained unsuccessful -- for lack of strong support from Moscow.

Russia's presence in Sevastopol is even more precarious. A protracted dispute over the fate of the former USSR's Black Sea fleet and its home port was settled -- with difficulty -- in 1997 when the two countries signed a 20-year lease agreement. Although Russia has been developing its Novorossiysk Black Sea port into a fully functional alternative for years, that doesn’t mean it is ready to leave Sevastopol in 2017 as agreed. It is completely possible that the Russians will try to remain in the city under some flimsy excuse.

Moscow in Sevastopol

There is good reason to be skeptical, because Sevastopol has long been a national symbol of the Russian authoritarian state. Although the lease agreement is restricted to military facilities, Russia sees itself as being in charge of the city, and it is Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov who underscores this claim with his presence and pithy rhetoric. In May 2008, during an appearance at a celebration to mark the 225th anniversary of the Black Sea fleet, Luzhkov reiterated earlier calls for the reintegration of Sevastopol and the Crimean Peninsula into the Russian Federation.


OTTO LUCHTERHANDT
privatOtto Luchterhandt, 61, is a professor at Hamburg University’s Institute for East European Law.

After the speech, the Ukrainian government declared Luzhkov a persona non grata, and President Viktor Yushchenko took the initiative by proposing a law that would terminate the lease when it expires in 2017. Russian military officials and politicians sharply criticized Yushchenko and downplayed his harsh reactions as short-sighted political pandering to NATO.

As for Crimea, in Ukraine's constitution it is given the pro forma status of an "autonomous republic," but without the true character of a state. Nevertheless, separatist calls for a return to Russia remain consistently popular on the peninsula, a circumstance that Moscow could easily use to its advantage.

In the assessment of political scientist Alexei Arbatov of the Carnegie Moscow Center, there is good reason to be concerned. In a guest article for the newspaper Nezavisimaya gazeta, Arbatov writes: "A certain group of people in Russia, in the political parties, mass media, government agencies and business community, has come to the conclusion that Ukraine and Georgia will undoubtedly join NATO. They may certainly join, but only after being reduced somewhat in size: Ukraine without the Crimea and the Donetsk Basin, and Georgia without Abkhazia and South Ossetia." According to Arbatov, the adherents to this line of thinking are already preparing for the virtual secession of the disputed territories.

Russia's response to Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia seems to confirm this view. This, in turn, does not bode well for Russia's relations with Ukraine, and Bernard Kouchner's warning is more than justified.

Russian Troops in Transnistria

When it comes to Moldova things look completely different -- the danger of escalation there is low because Russia's position is much stronger than in Ukraine. It maintains troops in Transnistria, thereby upholding the independence of the non-recognized republic from the central government in the Moldovan capital Chisinau and keeping Transnistrian President Igor Smirnov in power in his capital Tiraspol. Contrary to countless assurances it has given to the mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Moldova, Russia has yet to withdraw its troops from Transnistria.

And this is unlikely to change in the future, at least as long as Moldova, as a nation, has not adopted a constitutional order acceptable to Russia and guaranteed by Moscow, as the protective and intervening power. Such an amendment to the Moldovan constitution would correspond to the so-called "Kozak plan" of 2003. Although it called for incorporating Transnistria into a "Federation of Moldova," it also largely preserved Transnistria's independence and gave Tiraspol more power to influence the central government, giving Moscow an indirect route to influence Moldovan politics. A consensus could not be reached on the plan, however.

A September 2006 referendum in Transnistria on joining the Russian Federation strengthened Russia's justification for intervening in Moldova, when 97 percent of Transnistrians voted in favor of the proposal. Of course, the vote leaves the decision entirely up to Russia, but it also gives Moscow something it can define as a democratic referendum by the "people of Transnistria," which Russia could, and would, invoke if necessary, if it felt that intervening in Moldova were in its interest in the event of a conflict.

Nevertheless, Russia is unlikely to pursue an "annexation" of Transnistria. Indeed, Moscow is pursuing a different strategy there, using its dominance over Transnistria as political and diplomatic leverage to keep Moldova generally within its sphere of influence and, in particular, to prevent the country from joining NATO.

At first glance, there are strong similarities between Transnistria and the rebel republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. All three are products of the breakup of the USSR, and all three are home to national minorities, are run by unrecognized, de-facto regimes and are small. But the differences are even greater, namely that Russia has no common border with Transnistria, that the OSCE has played an important role in handling and "internationalizing" the conflict since it began, and that the Republic of Moldova is far too weak to seriously consider military action.

For these reasons, Medvedev's warning was merely a symbolic demonstration of Russian hegemony.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan




http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 38,00.html
Annelie
________________________
Uncle Joe
Enthusiast
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 5:04 pm
Location: Eastern Finland

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uncle Joe »

phylo_roadking wrote:
that UN never has and never will pass a resolution that would undermine any significant US interests, let alone enforce such a resolution.
Really???

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/no ... tednations

http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=4950
The United States opposed the resolution, which was passed by a 29-11 vote.
These are SIGNIFICANT to you? Please! A significant resolution would be e.g. a demand to immediately return 10% of US territory to Indians or a resolution to prosecute George Bush for war against humanity (e.g. torture). These are significant to me.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: War in Georgia

Post by phylo_roadking »

Joe - you made a "categorical" statement...
UN never has and never will pass a resolution that would undermine any significant US interests
I produced at least TWO in seconds - the the blockade of Cuba was pretty significant to US policy in the Carribean. You should know by now not to make categorical statements - you're just begging someone to prove you wrong. Changing the goalposts over interpretation just doesn't work. It's TOO big a world to say something like THAT and not be hit around the head with the exceptions...
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uli »

As of yesterday, August 29, U.S. newspapers continued to deal in half-truths regarding the situation in Georgia:

Reporting that China and a handful of her Central Asian neighbors were loathe to support Russia's prounouncement of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, our papers went one step further in labeling China's quietude "the cold shoulder" toward her Russian ally. Apparently the U.S. and certain of her NATO friends are having trouble calculating a reliable way in which they might demonize Russia for her invasion of Georgia, for they've now resorted to wholesale obfuscation as a tactic. Naturally, China couldn't openly support Moscow on her own because of potential fallout--as noted Annelie's pieces--on the matter of Tibet, a volatile issue for Beiijing and her protesters worldwide. Kirghizia and other Central Asian states, on the other hand, rely on petro-money gleaned through the sale of energy to the U.S., and Bishkek is currently about to ratchet-up the cost of an American military base housed in Kirghizia. So anyone reading or relying on certain American and European newspapers on the matter of the Russian-Georgian conflict should indeed do so with a grain of salt, if in fact those newspapers continue to report that potential Russian partners are giving Moscow the 'cold shoulder.'

The only thing one can take for certain in this matter is that Washington (and in some cases, London) is overstating news on the crisis in Georgia, while Russia seems bent on maintaining a more moderate tone. Just yesterday, Vladimir Putin reported that documents belonging to an American citizen had been found in Georgia (the documents of a CIA operative? Military personnel? An "advisor"?), and that the presence of such documents potentially made for a '...very dangerous situation' regarding Russian-U.S. relations. (A rather measured and tactful understatement, given that American warships now prowl the Black Sea in a display of gunboat diplomacy.) If the onetime presence of American troops in Georgia means little to Westerners who've presumably given little thought to the fact that our CIA has likely been pulling strings in that country long before the arrival of Russian tanks, it should be remembered that Americans once howled in self-righteous indignation when Soviet advisors and missiles turned up in Cuba, just 90 miles from Key West, Florida.

Moscow is right to remain quiet on this matter, for the more our side talks, deeper becomes the hole into which we dig ourselves.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942
Robert Rojas
Supporter
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Eugene - Oregon - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: These Are Significant To Me?

Post by Robert Rojas »

Greetings to both citizen Uncle Joe and the community as a whole. Well U.J. (or Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili if you so prefer), in respect to your installment of Friday - August 29, 2008 - 8:38am, old Uncle Bob must wonder out loud if you have your "SIGNIFICANT" priorities in order. Your angst gravitating upon the history and policies of BOTH the Bureau of Indian Affairs in general and the contemporary Bush Administration in particular might well be out of place within this ostensibly Eurocentric thread. If you really feel that you need to lose a considerable amount of sleep over some not so inconsequential matter, then you only need to look at your omnipotent geopolitical neighbor to the east. It's just some sobering food for thought. Well, that's my latest two cents, pence or kopecks worth on this continuing saga - for now anyway. In anycase, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in the ONCE and FUTURE Grand Duchy of Finland.
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee
Uncle Joe
Enthusiast
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 5:04 pm
Location: Eastern Finland

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uncle Joe »

Well, Uncle Roberto, the way EU has stolen our independence the latter option does not sound that bad for in several key issues like citizen´s right to carry arms Finland was much freer during the the late 19th century than it is today.
Yuri
Supporter
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:55 am

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Yuri »

It is a little humour for a discharge

It is taken from here
http://www.duel.ru/200835/? 35_2_1
Attachments
Do not offend small bear cubs
Do not offend small bear cubs
Ours to beat!.jpg (68.09 KiB) Viewed 5246 times
Yuri
Supporter
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:55 am

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Yuri »

It is full record of interview of Vladimir Putin for German ARD

And this that than, the western propagation has fed, ostensibly, free Germans.

The most essential and important points interview are simply thrown out or frankly deformed. Employees of propaganda device Erih Honneker in comparison with perverts from ARD appear as innocent babies.

Horror! Poor ... poor Germans! You it is sincerely a pity to me. How long will force still reason of the German people? Till what time to these people will not allow to hear, read, see, and the main thing to reflect independently!?
Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Uli »

Yuri wrote:It is full record of interview of Vladimir Putin for German ARD

And this that than, the western propagation has fed, ostensibly, free Germans.

The most essential and important points interview are simply thrown out or frankly deformed. Employees of propaganda device Erih Honneker in comparison with perverts from ARD appear as innocent babies.

Horror! Poor ... poor Germans! You it is sincerely a pity to me. How long will force still reason of the German people? Till what time to these people will not allow to hear, read, see, and the main thing to reflect independently!?
Thanks, Yuri:

Dutch newspapers yesterday were claiming that Russia isn't acting in the best interests of "the new world order." And the thought quickly sprang to mind--"Just what, precisely, is 'the new world order'"?

Given her large population and tremendous geo-political influence, perhaps Russia should make a motion to join NATO and emplace Russian "defensive" missiles and troops in each of the nations one will similarly find American military contingencies.

The U.S. wants military personnel and 'defensive' missiles inside Poland, Ukraine, and Central Asia, say it's leaders? Then allow Russia to do the same, and listen to the West howl. Never as today have I seen American goals and foreign policy so superficial, so backbiting, so U.S.-driven and -centered. It's all about us, and no one else. Indeed, if there genuinely existed a new world order, the U.S. wouldn't still be issuing international edicts as if we command the planet.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942
Annelie
Patron
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:07 am
Location: North America

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Annelie »

The plan for New World Order has been rumored to be in existence for a long time.
One language, one religion, one world without borders, one money.....etc.

Makes one wonder who will rule the world? That is what is scary, one dictator perhaps?
Complete control in future?
Annelie
________________________
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: War in Georgia

Post by phylo_roadking »

One language, one religion, one world without borders, one money.....etc.

Makes one wonder who will rule the world? That is what is scary, one dictator perhaps?
One god - Colonel Sanders - in the body of his son, Ronald MacDonald :D :D :D
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Annelie
Patron
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:07 am
Location: North America

Re: War in Georgia

Post by Annelie »

One god - Colonel Sanders - in the body of his son, Ronald MacDonald
Almost, almost happening :D :D

Good G_D what a thought.
Annelie
________________________
Locked